Author Topic: CHAPTER 6 - SECTION 3  (Read 426 times)


  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
« on: April 07, 2019, 12:22:56 PM »
6.3.1. Tesam, of those; bhutanam, creatures possessed of souls; khalu esam, which are such; i.e. birds etc. Since by the word 'these', proximate things are pointed out, therefore fire etc. are not meant by the word bhuta. As the process of their being compounds of three elements will be spoken of (only) later, therefore it is not possible to point to fire etc. directly so long as the process of compounding of the three elements is not complete. (Fire etc. are not meant also) because, with regard to fire etc. the word 'god' is used in the text 'these three gods' (VI.3.2).
Therefore, of those creatures that are animals, birds, plants, etc. bhavanti, there are; trini eva, only three; bijani, seeds, sources; but not more. Which are they? That is being answered. Andajam, born of eggs--birds etc.--the word andaja being the same as andaja. For it is seen that from birds, serpents, etc. are born birds, serpents, etc. only. Thus a bird becomes the seed (source) of birds, and a snake the seed of snakes. Similarly, whatever else is born of an egg, becomes the source of creatures of that class.
Objection: Is it not a fact that a creature born of an egg is called andaja? Therefore it is logical to say that the egg is the seed. Why is it said that the creature born of an egg is the seed?
Reply: It would have been truly so if the Upanisad to follow your wishes. But the Upanisad is independent, because of which it says that the creatures born from an egg etc. are the seeds, and not the egg etc. themselves. And it is a matter of experience that, unless there be creatures born of eggs, the line of their continuance snaps, but not when there is a dearth of eggs etc. Therefore the creatures born of eggs etc. are the sources of the egg-born creatures. Similarly, jivajam, born of creatures, i.e. born of wombs--human beings, animals, and others. Udbhijjam--that which penetrates upward is an udbhit, a tree. That which is born from it is udbhijjam. Or corns are udbhit. That which is born from them is udbhijjam, the seed of a plant. This is the meaning. Those born of mire and warmth (lice, bug, etc.) are included in those born of eggs and seeds respectively. For only then does the assertion that there are only three seeds become reasonable.

6.3.2 Sai iyam devata, that Deity under discussion, which is such, which is called Existence and has been spoken of as the source of fire, water and earth; aiksata, saw, just as before, 'I shall become many'. That very need of the process of becoming many has not ceased even today. Hence the Deity again undertook the act of seeing, by accepting the idea of becoming many. How? 'Hanta, let it be; that now aham, I; anupravisya, by entering; imah tisrah devatah, into these three gods, fire etc. as already mentioned; anena jivena atmana, in the form of the soul of each individual being.' Having the remembrance in Its mind of the experience in the earlier creation of the individual soul which is the sustainer of life, It says, 'In the form of a soul'. By the words 'which is the sustainer of life', the text shows that It entered in a form non-different from Its own nature as consciousness. Having entered--in the sense of mere association with the subtle forms of fire, water, and earth--, and becoming possessed of knowledge of particular entities, (It thought): 'Vyakaravani, I shall clearly manifest; nama rupe, name and form. I shall manifest in this manner, "This has got this name and this form."

Objection: While being free, is it not unreasonable for the non-transmigrating, omniscient Deity to consciously desire and enter thus: 'I shall experience sorrow by entering into the body which is the repository of hundreds of thousands of sorrows?
Reply: It is true that it would not have been resonable if the Deity had desired, 'I shall enter in my own unsullied nature, and I shall experience sorrow'. But this is not so. In what way then?

(In the way as evident) from the statement, 'In the form of the soul of each individual being'. An individual soul is merely a reflection of the Deity. It arises from (Its) contact with the subtle elements in the form of intellect etc. It is like a reflection of a person, seeming to have entered into a mirror, and like (the reflection of) the sun etc. in water etc. The contact of the Deity possessed of inscrutable and infinite power, with the intellect etc. is (in the form of) a reflection of consciousness. This becomes the cause of multifarious and conflicting ideas such as, 'I am happy', 'I am sorrowful', 'I am ignorant', etc. owing to the non-realisation of the true nature of the Deity. Since the Deity has entered merely as a reflection in the form of an individual soul, therefore It does not Itself become connected with physical happiness, sorrow, etc. As a person, the sun, and others entering into a mirror, water, etc. merely through their reflections, are not touched by the defects of the mirror, water, etc. so also the Deity is not.

It is also stated in the Katha Upanishad: 'Jut as the sun which is this eye of the whole world, is not tainted by the ocular and external defects, similarly the Self that is but one in all beings, is not tainted by the sorrows of the world, It being transcendental (Ka.II.2.11); 'All-pervasive', 'Eternal', 'like space' (Cf. Ka.);
and in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad it is said: 'He meditates as it were, He runs as it were' (Br. IV. 3.7).

Objection: If the individual sould be a mere reflection, then it becomes reduced to unreality, and so also are its attainment of the other world, this world, etc.
Reply: There is no such defect, since it is admitted to be true in its real nature as Existence. And all modifications such as names, forms, etc. are true only in their nature as Existence. But by themselves they are surely unreal because it has been said: 'All transformations has speech as its basis' (IV.4.1). So also in an individual soul. There is the well-known proverb that 'An offering should be in accordance with the nature of the demigod.' Therefore, all phenomenal dealings and all modifications are true in their nature as Existence. Hence, in this matter no such objection can be raised by the logicians that, being different from Existence, (the souls) are false, though this criticism can be asserted against the dualisty standpoints which are contradictory to one another, that they are mere fancies of their own minds, and are rooted in unreality.

6.3.3 That Deity, having entered into the three gods, saw, 'I shall manifest name and form, the unmanifested name and form which, as seeds, exist in me'; and "I shall make each one of these three gods three-fold and three-fold. (In making each one three-fold) each one (in turn) becomes predominant, and the other two in turn take secondary places. Otherwise, the process of making three-fold would be one only, as in plaiting three strands into a rope; but there would not be a distinct process of making the three (gods) three-fold. In this way indeed, fire, water and earth will get separate names and ideas as, "this is fire", "these are waters", and "this is earth". And when the gods are endowed with separate names and ideas, then only the fructification of the proper uses (of the three gods) will be ensured. Having visualized thus, sa, that; devata, Deity; iyam, that was such, entered like the sun's reflection, into these three gods; in the form of Jivena, the individual soul, as already described. And having thus entered first into the body of Virat and then into the bodies of the gods; vyakarot, It manifested; nama-rupe, names and form, verily according to Its own wish, 'Let this have this name, this form', etc.

6.3.4. That Deity made each one of these three gods three fold and three-fold (by turns) according to the predominance and secondariness of their (qualities). Let the point as to how the bodies of the gods and others, when manifested through names and forms, become three-fold by possessing fire, water and earth, be kept in abeyance. 'Tu, but; vijanihi, know, understand fully; me, from me, with the help of examples; tat, that, how each one of these three gods; bhavati, becomes three-fold and three-fold outside the bodies.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 06:41:37 PM by Commentary »